Home - , , , - MetroPCS Takes a Dig at Cricket's New $70 Unlimited Data Plan

MetroPCS Takes a Dig at Cricket's New $70 Unlimited Data Plan


metropcs-all-we-hear-is-crickets
Earlier, Cricket Wireless announced that they will be rolling out a new $70 unlimited data plan on Sunday, April 17. The new plan is said to include unlimited talk, messaging in and between the US, Mexico and Canada plus data speeds throttled to 8 Mbps on LTE and 4 Mbps on HSPA+.


Shortly after the announcement was made, T-Mobile CEO John Legere pulled a Kanye West move on Cricket Wireless through Twitter. Legere sent out a tweet through MetroPCS' Twitter account to point out that the new $70 unlimited data plan offered by its rival carrier was actually "charging more for less service." The company then sent out newsletters informing them of why they were not threatened by the new unlimited plan offered by Cricket.

@CricketNation That awkward moment when you try to get users to switch by charging more for less service. #AllWeHearIsCrickets

After reading the fine print, Legere reminds everyone that MetroPCS has long offered an unlimited LTE plan that costs cheaper than the one offered by Cricket. According to the newsletter:

  • MetroPCS' Unlimited LTE Plan only costs $60, which is $10 less expensive than Cricket's
  • MetroPCS doesn't cap speeds at 4 or 8 Mbps like Cricket does
  • MetroPCS' Unlimited LTE Plan includes 8GB of LTE data for mobile hotspot
  • Plus, MetroPCS' Unlimited LTE Plan has long been in place unlike Cricket's, which customers will have to wait until Sunday to get.
While it's true that MetroPCS has this plan in place and has a cheaper price for it, you still have to factor in the fact that there is more LTE coverage offered by Cricket compared to MetroPCS. But then again, we'll let our readers decide which one they'd rather go for.


Source: MetroPCS Twitter

96 comments:

Comment Page :
  1. It's a no-brainer, MetroPCS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Less" service but far better coverage. It's a no-brainer, Cricket

      Delete
    2. Metro's on much smaller network. 0mbps is much slower than Cricket's throttled speed. The choice: Cricket.

      Delete
    3. If the coverage works for you...go with METRO and save. If the coverage doesn't work for you, go with Crickey. Simple as that.

      Delete
    4. I've had Cricket for 6 months now, worse service ever...can't even answer my phone.

      Delete
  2. Fair points. But Cricket can still charge $70 ($65 for autopay vs $55 with MetroPCS' with their own $5 monthly discount) because their coverage is far more coprehensive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cricket coverage is NOT far more comprehensive. The T-Mobile LTE network now covers 91% of the number of square miles covered by the AT&T network. 305M people are within T-Mobile coverage areas, vs. 306M people for AT&T coverage areas.
      MetroPCS has twice as many customers as Cricket, and Metro offers better value for most people.

      Delete
    2. Not all coverage is the same though. I'm one of those people who are supposedly covered by both 4G LTE networks in my suburban home. I can get 4G LTE 20Mbps data downloads from the AT&T network, but I can barely even get 2G on T-Mobile's network. You wouldn't know that from looking at the coverage maps.

      In my neck of the woods, the bands used by T-Mobile have poor building penetration, and it's not the only part of the US where this is the case.

      Delete
    3. "Cricket coverage is NOT far more comprehensive. The T-Mobile LTE network now covers 91% of the number of square miles covered by the AT&T network"

      A difference the size of Texas is still "yooge". Also you need to look at actual coverage, not just LTE. T-Mobile is way behind on one, and hardly even a presence on the other.

      "I can get 4G LTE 20Mbps data downloads from the AT&T network, but I can barely even get 2G on T-Mobile's network."

      That's better than the 0mbps you still get in half the Lower 48. Territory covered generously by the still hugely better AT&T and Verizon networks.

      T-Mobile has a long way to go to catch up with them. They keep trying to deceive in their promotions, mentioning POPs (home addressed based and useless for consideration in a mobile network situatioon) or look at "LTE only" to try and cover up for the coverage being half of the better networks.

      Delete
  3. MetroPCS requires $5 add-on for international SMS, which brings total to $65. Cricket gives autopay discount of $5, which brings total to $65.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm sorry metropcs but here are your problems too.

    Your coverage sucks in my NH area.

    You can't move byop sim cards into another phone.

    That tethering won't work on non metropcs phones. And didn't like some of your phone selections.

    So there you have it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree in general.

      On both cricket and metro, only iPhones can offer Byod tethering.

      Delete
    2. I don't know what you guys are talking about. You can absolutely move a sim card with BYOP devices, unfortunately you have to call Customer service, and it takes a few minutee, but it can be done. I recently did this with unlocked no carrier phone. Tethering works fine on my unlocked LG G3

      Delete
  5. Metro PCS doesn't have Roaming in Mexico and Canada. Do they have free int'l text too? Coverage is priority.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, MetroPCS does have roaming in Mexico and Canada. It is available as a 5.00 add on service. I have it because I travel to Canada frequently.

      Delete
    2. So with a $5 add on you can spend less than $50 with Metro and roam in Canada.

      If you spend lss than $50 with Cricket and try to roam in Canada, all you get are Crickets.

      No coverage? No thanks!

      Delete
  6. They seem to keep leaving out that Cricket is $5/month cheaper than MetroPCS when factoring in the group discounts.

    So, you can save $5/month over MetroPCS' family plan and pay Cricket $50/month for the unlimited plan, you'd gain a larger network, but get throttled speeds and lose out on tethering.

    For one line, MetroPCS would be cheaper, but you'd lose out on the larger network.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cricket Group Save accounts aren't eligible for the the Auto Pay discount.
      2 Cricket Unlimited lines would be $130 (2 X $70) -$10 Group Save discount.
      2 MetroPCS unlimted lines would be $100 (2 X $60) - $10 Family plan discount.

      Delete
    2. I was assuming if you max out the $100 group save discount for five lines, that is $20 per line. $70 - $20 = $50 per unlimited line.

      Delete
    3. I believe two unlimited lines on MetroPCS would cost $110 ($55 per line) not $100.

      Delete
  7. Many areas do not have TMO coverage but do have ATT service.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Old story, no longer true. According to the latest OpenSignal national network comparison test, Feb ’16, Verizon users are connected to the LTE network an average 86.7% of the time. AT&T users stay connected 82.6% of the time. T-Mobile has virtually caught up with AT&T, with users remaining connected 81.2% of the time. Sprint lags far behind at 70%. T-Mobile posted the fastest average download speed, 12.3 Mbps. Verizon was a virtual tie at just under 12Mbps. AT&T lagged far behind at 7.9. Sprint was last at 6.6.

      Delete
    2. I'm not following what those numbers are supposed to tell us. T-Mobile users are going to be satisfied within their footprint but that doesn't mean that the coverage is comparable.

      Delete
    3. OK. Just read the execsum:

      "T-Mobile defies the coverage critics

      T-Mobile traditionally has fallen short of its larger rivals Verizon and AT&T in coverage, but it's a problem CEO John Legere has vowed to fix. Our most recent data shows he's making good on that promise. T-Mobile's LTE coverage increased to 81% in the fourth quarter. It now nearly matches AT&T in LTE availability and is closing the gap with Verizon."

      Delete
    4. You don't get connected in many rural areas with TMO at all. Therefore, those percentages mean nothing.

      Delete
    5. "Many areas do not have TMO coverage but do have ATT service."

      That's the way it is now, today. even according to T-Mobile's own maps. There's still a huge difference between T-Mobile coverage and that of the much bigger "native" AT&T network.

      "T-Mobile users are going to be satisfied within their footprint but that doesn't mean that the coverage is comparable."

      Yes. they just learn to get by with much less, network-wise.

      Delete
    6. The OpenSignal report is not based on fixed locations like some studies. Lack of coverage in rural areas IS reflected in the OpenSignal coverage comparisons. There if virtually no difference between AT&T and T-Mobile users' LTE coverage in the latest report. Read their methodology.
      As for a "huge difference" in mapped LTE coverage, it's only 9%. Hardly "huge."

      Delete
    7. Mike said: "You don't get connected in many rural areas with TMO at all. Therefore, those percentages mean nothing."

      T-Mobile has poor or no coverage in a large proportion of US cities and towns. It's not just "rural".

      Delete
    8. "As for a "huge difference" in mapped LTE coverage, it's only 9%. Hardly "huge.""

      It is in fact huge. A large chunk of US territory, and it ends up that many Eastern US states are poorly covered by T-Mobile, while they are well covered by the AT&T network.

      And this overlooks the extremely poor coverage T-Mobile has at slower speeds.

      Delete
    9. "T-Mobile has poor or no coverage in a large proportion of US cities and towns. It's not just "rural."
      This has been debunked here before. For example, All 752 US cities as defined in the 2014 US Census (>50k population) have T-Mobile coverage.

      Delete
    10. T-Mobile's poor coverage is well known, and pointing out that only a tiny fraction of US cities and towns have it kinda backfired on you.

      Delete
    11. Facts are stubborn, unlike hunches based on opinion.
      More than 80 percent of the nation’s population resided in one of the top 350 combined metropolitan statistical areas. All of these areas have T-Mobile coverage.
      All 914 incorporated cities/towns/townships identified in the US Census have T-Mobile coverage.
      Even if you go all the way down to the bottom 25 of the top 5000 cities and towns in the US, towns with population from only 4298-4318, you can only find one place that does not have T-Mobile coverage.
      The notion that "T-Mobile has poor or no coverage in a large proportion of US cities and towns" is a meaningless statement, backed up by nothing.

      Delete
    12. I like and use T-Mobile. However it's simply not true that all incorporated cites/towns/townships have native T-Mobile coverage. Here are a few of the many that don't:

      Coos Bay OR Pop 15K - no native T-Mobile coverage, only partner (roaming) coverage which does not include data for prepaid users

      Wausau WI Pop 39K - no T-Mobile coverage, not even postpaid roaming

      Great Falls MT Pop 59K - roaming, no prepaid data

      Casper WY pop 55K - roaming, no prepaid data

      Minot ND pop 41K - roaming, no prepaid data

      Rutland VT pop 15K - roaming, no prepaid data

      Lexington TN pop 8K - no T-Mobile coverage, not even postpaid roaming

      Delete
    13. "More than 80 percent of the nation’s population resided in one..."

      I see you are arguing for landline replacement again. Fine. but inapplicable to mobile networks.

      The notion that "T-Mobile has poor or no coverage in a large proportion of US cities and towns" rather true statement, backed up even by their own coverage map.

      Delete
    14. "All 914 incorporated cities/towns/townships identified in the US Census have T-Mobile coverage." The Census list contains 914 incorporated places with population of 50k or more.

      Delete
    15. I worked with the Census. The "914" quotation is pure bunk. There are many thousands of cities and towns and townships in the United States, not 914.

      Delete
    16. Let's look at the reality of this, shall we?

      48 lower states in the US. Cricket covers almost all of 41 of these states quite well. Of the states not covered well, only one is in the more-densely-populated eastern half of the US.

      Of the other 6 states not covered well by Cricket (in the sparsely populated West), most are half or two-thirds covered anyway.

      ------------------

      T-Mobile? Hard to tell, as their coverage map on their own web site has been broken for years (errors such as showing no-coverage areas as 4G depending on your zoom level). But it is far worse: at least 9 states in the eastern US poorly covered by T-Mobile. That's 8 (or more) compared to Cricket. Pretty bad. And the West is a disaster: when you go west of the Mississippi, almosst all states states have poor T-Mobile coverage (only South Dakota and Minnesota come out good), instead of just the 6 with Cricket problems.

      This is what happens when you take the bogus "T-Mobile is only 91% the size of Cricket" ad copy and put it where the rubber hits the road.

      Yeah, T-Mobile has come far from where it was a couple of years ago, when it was a marginal "US Cellular" type company with a decent ad budget added. But it was so far behind, and has had a lot of catching up to do to become a decent national carrier. It still has quite a ways to go.

      Delete
    17. The list of incorporated places over 50,000 population substantially overlaps the list of 752 cities and towns over 50K. Better to use the Census list of the 5000 largest cities and towns.
      Only 6 out of the 100 smallest towns, with populations from 4298-4426 have no T-Mobile coverage. That is a very small percentage, and it should be an even lower percentage if you look at larger cities and towns on the list.

      Delete
    18. Bunk: Here are 7 sizable cities and towns with no T-Mobile native coverage:
      Great Falls MT Pop 59K,
      Casper WY pop 55K,
      Minot ND pop 41K,
      Wausau WI Pop 39K,
      Rutland VT pop 15K,
      Coos Bay OR Pop 15K,
      Lexington TN pop 8K

      Delete
    19. "Facts are stubborn, unlike hunches based on opinion."

      Hunches and opinion is all those who can't deal with the fact of T-Mobile's still significally worse coverage... even to the point of falsely presenting flimsy arguments about T-Mobile covering just 914 cities.

      Of course all of the arguments based on fix zipped codes are invalid when talking of a MOBILE carrier. If you want to argue that T-Mobile's poor coverage and still large presence in a cluster of tiny dots that are fixed addresses makes it great for landline replacement, go right ahead.

      Delete
    20. Roaming coverage is not bunk. Only Wausau and Lexington have no T-Mobile coverage.

      Delete
    21. Hunch: "no coverage in a large proportion of US cities and towns. It's not just "rural"."
      Facts indicate the opposite. A large proportion of US cities and towns have T-Mobile coverage. And the ones that don't are predominantly very small towns in rural areas.

      Delete
    22. Wausau and Lexington are but two of the huge proportion of towns ignored by T-Mobile. Not to mention the land in between any towns: even more important since this is a MOBILE carrier. You seem stuck on the landline replacement mindset of the all important zip code... when for mobile, what matters is area.

      Roaming coverage isn't bunk: here T-Mobile loses badly. In these roaming areas you have talk and text, but the data is either not at all, a small amount, or expensive. In the same vast area where the much better networks just give you data.

      Delete
  8. I'm telling people not to get too excited. Cricket is simply worthless the moment AT&T has any amount of congestion. Visit a stadium or concert and you won't be able to make phone calls let alone browse the web. The heavy throttle they impose (running all data via a proxy) forces all Cricket users to share a limited quantity of AT&T bandwidth. So, while you may get some additional coverage, you may question whether its even usable. A year from now when T-Mobile has completed 700mhz rollout, there might not be a coverage advantage anymore. However, I do wonder if T-Mobile will introduce competing offers like switch credits, more international add-ons, or even zero-rated video. However, competition is good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was our experience when we tried Cricket a couple months ago. Data speeds were so slow it was frustrating to try to send an MMS.

      Delete
    2. Call priority issues have gotten progressively worse for me (ATL) to the point of being unacceptable. I will be leaving Cricket and trying MetroPCS .

      Delete
    3. Hate to break it to you guy but all carriers use proxy servers.

      Delete
    4. The fact remains that even a choked throttled Cricket speed is much faster and much more useful than having absolutely no data at all on the still, yes in 2016, much smaller T-Mobile network.

      If I want something better than choked Cricket speeds, I'd look at Consumer Cellular or regular AT&T, not something on a much smaller threadbare network.

      Delete
    5. "Cricket is simply worthless the moment AT&T has any amount of congestion. Visit a stadium or concert and you won't be able to make phone calls let alone browse the web."

      Looks like FUD to me. I don't go to big cities too much, and usually use Cricket in small towns and "rural" areas (those well populated counties typically served well by the two truly national carriers).


      However, I have taken my Cricket service plan phone to Disney World. huge concerts, and downtown in some of the biggest cities in the country, and have actually gotten better speed (pretty much 8mbps) in the congested areas than I have usually in more remote areas (fewer far away towers).

      And if you check headlines, congestion and slow-down problems happen sometimes in major concentrated crowds for ALL the carriers.

      Still, I am aware of the possibility of Cricket congestion (probably just from T-Mobile trolls in forums), I sometimes have a backup phone with me on Sprint (RingPlus) just in case, when I go to such areas. Maybe I've been listening to the FUD too much.

      That's far better than putting my eggs in one basket with a carrier like T-Mobile, with its 0mbps much worse than anything Cricket has ever offered me: the idea of having no coverage most of the time to avoid the possibility that I would go to a huge city with slow Cricket.

      Delete
  9. Too bad you can't get MetroPcs everywhere. Can't get service unless they have a store in your city, which sucks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not true. I've gotten coverage where no Metro stores exist. You can order online

      Delete
    2. Yeah, but even then, no MetroPCS service let alone stores in most places.

      Delete
    3. Although I've been to many places, I guess I don't go to "most places" because T-Mobile has worked just about everywhere I've been.

      Delete
    4. You really have to go out of your way with coverage map in hand to do that.

      Delete
  10. No need for a cricket / metro war. Metro of you live in a big city. Cricket for more areas. With a 5 line group plan on cricket this plan is only $50.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What is this popup spam?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see any popups on this page?

      Delete
    2. I had a JavaScript popup on my phone, Hi Sprint user, click ok to get your blah blah did not read the rest as I was closing down the browser and rebooting the phone as fast as possible,

      Delete
  12. The Open Signal is being misinterpreted. T-Mobile and Sprint look better than they actually are because most of their coverage is urban so most customers live in LTE coverage.
    ATT and Verizon have far more rural coverage where there are fewer customers creating less incentive for LTE. ATT and Verizon have hundreds of thousands of square miles more LTE coverage than T-Mobile or Sprint.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So sorry you don't understand the OpenSignal report cause it doesn't fit your bias.
      Everybody can read it for themselves here:
      http://opensignal.com/reports/2016/02/usa/state-of-the-mobile-network/

      Delete
    2. Who cares about rural coverage? Nobody lives there.

      Delete
    3. "Anonymous April 16, 2016 at 12:12 PM" Correct: Open Signal has a fatal bias in that it underreports the places that the worse networks have no coverage. Open Signal is worthless until they weigh the relative signals from all carriers, including without any bias all areas whether they have towers or not.

      It's clear that you understand the bias of "Open Signal", and have presented a bias-free argument.

      Delete
    4. Legere's arguments prove he is long on profanity and short on facts.

      ""MetroPCS' Unlimited LTE Plan only costs $60, which is $10 less expensive than Cricket's"

      That's only $5 less expensive than Cricket for anyone planning to get Cricket for more than one consecutive month. Legere is only half correct.

      "MetroPCS doesn't cap speeds at 4 or 8 Mbps like Cricket does"

      True, but what is the relevance. Can Legere even name one thing that the capped speeds prevent anyone from doing?

      "MetroPCS' Unlimited LTE Plan includes 8GB of LTE data for mobile hotspot"

      At last, one fully valid hit against Cricket.

      "Plus, MetroPCS' Unlimited LTE Plan has long been in place unlike Cricket's, which customers will have to wait until Sunday to get."

      Factually correct, but incredibly weak. If your debate point completely expires in less than 48 hours, why even make it?

      Overall, rather unconvincing.

      Delete
    5. Maybe they're trying to market moo-bile phones to cows.

      Delete
    6. You can buy from Metro PCS today and pay less or you can wait and pay more at Cricket. Who cares? I don't like Legere so his argument is invalid.

      Delete
    7. "Who cares? I don't like Legere so his argument is invalid."

      Do you live your life that way? You don't like someone so the have no validity?

      Delete
  13. does anyone know if boosts 55. unlimited plan is throttled? I think I'd rather go with them than either of these two?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not throttled, but their coverage area is tiny. If you never travel outside cities you'll be happy. Otherwise not so much.

      They do, though, offer limited voice and text risking on some phones.

      Delete
  14. I love this but fact's are fact's....

    MetroPCS Unlimited Plan $60 but when you pay at a retailer locations there is a $3.00 charge so now we are at $63.00 and even worse in some retail locations the charge $2.00 to use a debit card for bill payment...so when you look at it where is the price difference. Cricket Wireless Unlimited $70 plan is $65 with autopay..Second Area's where there are T-Mobile and Heavy MetroPCS retailers the DATA SPEEDS are a horrible. Not all carriers work for everyone. As for hotspot...I use an unlocked T-mobile device and have no issue with getting hotspot...last for wait in cricket finally doing unlimited data is less than 24 hrs away so by the time most see that comment it will be invalid. Two Thumbs Up for Cricket Wireless....

    ReplyDelete
  15. MeteoPCS coverage of my zipcode of 76040 is perfectly fine. I get 60 down and 20 up without any problems what so ever. To me MetroPCS is as good as Cricket where I live.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's fine as long as you never leave that zipcode.

      Delete
  16. Dennis...is it true that MetroPCS BYOP Sim card cannot swap to another phone? And, also mobile hotspot works only on MetroPcs branded phone? Thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unlike most GSM operators, MetroPCS SIMs have to be "paired" to a phone's IMEI number and won't work in phones that haven't been paired to the account. You can still move your service to another phone but you have to contact customer service every time you switch phones. There are ways to get hotspot working on any phone with both MetroPCS and Cricket, this is also used to get around the data cap or block on hotspot access. Not long ago Cricket didn't allow any hotspot use with their plans but many still managed to use hotspot data without having to pay Cricket anything extra. Do a Google search to learn how to get hotspot working on your phone.

      Delete
  17. MetroPCS needs a $125 per line port in incentive for ATT customers to trump Crickets promotion. Otherwise, T-Mobile will appear weak, like they are conceding to ATT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you have better plans, you don't need to throw money at people in a desperate attempt to get them to switch.

      Delete
    2. "When you have better plans, you don't need to throw money at people in a desperate attempt to get them to switch."

      The T-Mobile plan is worse, so maybe they will have to throw money like you say.

      Delete
  18. No if Legere doesn't at least match the Cricket promotion after running his mouth, Legere will appear powerless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To match the Cricket deal, Legere will have to raise his prices by a few dollars, drop the hotspot feature, and instantly implement a huge expansion to T-Mobile coverage.

      Delete
  19. Look at this long thread! All over what amounts to a $5 price difference. MetroPCS' unlimited plan costs $60, Cricket's costs $65 with auto pay. If you're willing to pay $60 per month, $5 more or less isn't a deciding factor. The good news is that MetroPCS and Cricket are both GSM, so you can easily switch between the two whenever you want. It is prepaid after all. A better use for this already long thread would be to get one or the other and report your experience here so we can all benefit from your experience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Toms Guide compared Metropcs to cricket. They recommend Metropcs for all users except families of 3 or more who are price-sensitive. The MetroPcs network performed almost 4 times faster in their independent testing and was a big factor in the recommendations.

      Delete
    2. The Tom's Guide study compared speeds in just 6 cities, cherry picked to make the T-Mobile network look good.

      A randomly chosen location... Any.. is likely to have 0mpbs on MetroPCS and a good speed on AT&T or Verizon.

      Delete
  20. The Tom's guide speed comparison is worthless, since it doesn't count the slowest T-Mobile sites. How better to cook data to make it look good for a company than to filter out any place where it doesn't perform at all?

    And in general, it is outdated, as of today. Tom's Guide does not count this new Cricket plan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The idea that Tom's Guide would "cook" their study to make T-Mobile look good is ludicrous.
      Anyone who actually read the study would know that the new Cricket plan would have made no difference in the outcome. Cricket network performance was very bad, Metro's prices were usually lower, and MetroPCS scored much better in the overall ratings.

      Delete
    2. Do they intentionally leave off from their speed comparison the slowest sites? Probably not. They are just sloppy and careless.

      Interesting that you seem to be avoiding the fact that a "study" on network speed that ignores when the carrier is the slowest is completely invalid.

      Delete
  21. If a study doesn't agree with my bias, it must be invalid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A study that counts the good and bad and ugly is not biased. I think you want a biased study?

      Delete
  22. I would love to use MetroPCS, unfortunately due to agreements with iWireless in Iowa, you can't even get it!!! So it's Cricket for me.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I prefer MetroPCS' unlimited plan but Cricket's port in credit is very tempting. I'm suprised MetroPCS isnt matching it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. What port in credit? I don't see a port in credit at Cricket.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cricket is offering a $50 credit for port-ins. It's one of the deals featured in the scrolling banner at the top on the Cricket home page. According to a Cricket press release the credit is increased to $100 if you are poring from T-Mobile.

      Delete
    2. BTW, the cricket site is at cricketwireless.com. cricket.com is a useless domain squatters ad farm.

      Delete
  25. Is crickets 70 dollar plan really unlimited other then the 4mbps=8mbps i get 35mbps on metro pcs rite now no its not very reliable but i need something cheaper and with discounts cricket is cheaper. If its throttled what is the cutoff limit?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Perka: The Cricket plan claims no throttle other than the 8mbps*. Unlimited means you keep that level no matter how much you use.

    There should be a noticable reliability improvement over MetroPCS, especially if you travel even a little bit.

    * A throttle that in practice can be from 2mbps to 9mbps.

    ReplyDelete
  27. ive had both and cricket consistently gets 8gb in buildings, in home, in town, and traveling. metro was faster outside, but didn't work in a lot of buildings i would be in, wasn't great to travel with at all like t mobile, and call quality was a joke...as long as cricket is owned by ATT im a loyal customer to CRICKET!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, MetroPCS doesn't work too good outside or inside, but other than that it is great!

      Delete
Comment Page :